Fox Sports' Simon Hill launches impassioned plea for end of football hooliganism myth in Australia
By Fox Sports football commentator Simon Hill
FOX SPORTS March 12, 2013 8:40PM
So, we've now had two "silent" protests by two different sets of supporters in the space of one week. What are they telling us?
In my opinion, they pose a serious question as to the discontent between fans, and how the stands at A-League matches are monitored and controlled by the authorities. It is also very clear that there is real anger from genuine fans at how they are being portrayed in the mainstream media.
Let's make one thing clear from the outset. I am not condoning poor behaviour by supporters at games. Any loutishness, criminal damage or violence is to be condemned in the strongest terms. I applaud the harsh punishments dished out to those who are proven to have taken part in such acts. But something written in a Melbourne paper last week struck a chord - taking me back to an earlier time, supporting my team in England.
The papers editorial wrote that the "British disease that infected soccer (sic) has reappeared in Australia". It went on to label the alleged problems at Melbourne Victory games as a "new epidemic" being spread by "thugs."
I lived through those times as a fan in the UK, and while it's true there were many high profile incidents in the 1980s, I went to hundreds of matches at some of the most notorious grounds in England, and rarely encountered any trouble.
Why? Because I didn't look for it. I was only interested in supporting my team. Poor behaviour is a social disease, not a football one. I saw many more fights in the pub on a Friday, but that didn't stop me going out for a drink every weekend either. There are thousands of A-League fans here in Australia just like that - the vast majority in fact - and to label the problems as an "epidemic" is not only unfair to that majority, it's unnecessarily inflammatory.
It's also plain wrong. Want proof? Righto.
At Victory matches this year, (ahead of the Newcastle Jets game) there had been a total (at all home games) of 36 evictions. An average of 3.25 per game. In an average attendance of 23,610. Doesn't sound much like an epidemic to me. Those figures are roughly similar to the ejection figures for all AFL games at Etihad Stadium last season. In 2012, there were a total of 210 evictions over 47 games - an average of just over 4 per game.
Now, the reason I bring AFL into this argument is not to denigrate the code or its fans. Everyone has the right to support the code of their choice, and there are many fans who watch, and enjoy both games. But some in the Melbourne media continue to try to draw parallels between the behaviour of the fans of the codes - and it's about time some myths were challenged. Why are those AFL figures (comparable in number) not given similar front page treatment?
In response to the trouble at the Melbourne derby (yes, there was some - no use denying it), Melbourne Victory acted swiftly, handing out very severe penalties to the handful of their fans found guilty of anti-social behaviour.
But the problem for football is the oxygen some mainstream media give to these myths. Did the paper applaud Victory's actions for cracking down (as they demanded)? No - they interviewed one of those banned, put him in the paper and tried to perpetuate the myth once again. Unbelievable.The vast majority of well-behaved football fans just aren't prepared to cop it, (if you'll pardon the pun) any longer, and nor should they.
There are other examples of this uneven approach - a television crew planting a mini-cam near the Western Sydney Wanderers end in the February 16 game at AAMI Park, specifically to try and capture footage of trouble. Newspaper reporters following travelling Victory fans to pre-match pub venues, trying to catch them if they showed anti-social behaviour.
Is the same treatment dished out to AFL fans, who misbehave in equal numbers? Fat chance. Those mischief-makers are ignored, or at best, brushed off as being "larrikins" - regular blokes who've had a bit too much grog at the footy. But trouble at the "soccer?" That's a riot, mate.
The reason for the double standard can perhaps be found in the demographic of the reporters involved in the Melbourne media. Most (in fact, a very large majority) are Anglo. A-League crowds by contrast, are very reflective of the cultural shift going on in Australia - a multi-cultural sport mirroring a nation where one in four is now born overseas. Yet those trends are not reflected at all in the Melbourne media.
The mono-culture that dominates in those circles (in the main) understands little, and cares even less about "soccer." I've witnessed that first hand in my work in the media.
The main thrust of a recent tasteless story in a Melbourne paper was that the chanting and cheering alarmed the writer- and the nasty undercurrent was that this was due to it being "foreign" in origin. His standout line was that "WE invented a great football code" (we, I presume being the Anglo part of Australia, and the code being AFL), implying inherent superiority in all facets, and, furthermore, that if they (being "soccer" fans) didn't agree, then they could all "rack off." Seriously.
In return, we should be asking - to whom is this addressed? Is he inferring that all football fans are to be labelled as somehow foreign due to their love of the game? What about those born here who attend A-League matches? Are they to be forcibly expatriated because of such assumptions, and the actions of an idiotic few, who were probably born here too?
Let's finish where we started - back in the UK. The trouble in the 1980s was real enough, but even then (outside of the major events at Heysel and the infamous Luton/Millwall clash), it remained the unwanted acts of a small minority. The media there too, did a good job of whipping up the story into a frenzy (minus the racial undertones), prompting calls for ever heavier-handed policing and even ID cards, as espoused by the then PM, Margaret Thatcher.
In the end, one of the major contributing factors to easing tensions in stadia was a co-operative approach by police, authorities, clubs and fans, who did some splendid work through the fanzine movement to campaign for better treatment (and facilities) for the well-behaved majority. Now, the authorities are more low-key, and, while still vigilant, seek to douse tensions, not inflame them. It's time for a similar approach here.
The authorities need to know how to handle football crowds (witness the statement made by the Victorian policeman on duty at the derby, who said he was "only just beginning to understand soccer"), because football crowds are different - they're noisy, colourful, tribal, and that's what makes them such a spellbinding backdrop.
The message then, is this:
Fans - be vigilant, and self-police. Don't stand for any nonsense from your fellow supporters who partake in trouble, and for pity's sake, leave the flares for the open sea. They're illegal. If you misbehave, you deserve all you get.
Authorities - please look at your tactics when controlling football crowds. By all means evict trouble-makers, but perhaps take time to get some advice from your UK/European counterparts, who are more familiar with football crowd behaviour. Liaise with active supporter groups, earn their trust and demand it in return. Remember, 99.9 per cent are just there to watch the game and support their team.
As for those in the media who seek to sensationalise and label all football fans as hooligans, merely to paint their own code of choice in a better light - look at the facts. Your stereotypes are untrue and unwarranted. Stick to what you know.
And to re-work the words of that crass Melbourne reporter - take your oval-shaped ball with you.
http://www.foxsports.com.au/footbal...-of/story-e6frf4gl-1226595870003#.UT_fEBxgdqW
